[HOLD #33518] [$500] Scan - Confirmation page resets to empty field when previous scan request creation fails

[lanitochka17]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.4.31-2
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Go to workspace chat
2. Create a scan request with an invalid file that will result in an error. (use corrupted pdf attached)
3. Create another scan request and reach the confirmation page

Expected Result:

will not change when the previous scan request creation fails

Actual Result:

When the first request creation results in error, the confirmation page for the second request is reset to empty fields

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6353338_1706109563449.1000009575.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01c62efac50e9080f0
• Upwork Job ID: 1750180736709853184
• Last Price Increase: 2024-02-14

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01c62efac50e9080f0

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @JmillsExpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @abdulrahuman5196 (External)

[lanitochka17]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave5.
CC @dylanexpensify

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

The request confirmation info becomes empty when there is a failed scan request.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The money request create page depends on transaction draft onyx. When there is a request money fails, it will clear the transaction draft onyx.

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Lines 539 to 543 in a8a3a4c

	{
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.SET,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_DRAFT}${CONST.IOU.OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID}`,
	value: null,
	},

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Don't clear the transaction draft onyx when fails because we already did it in optimistic data.

this issue most likely happen on split bill too

[abdulrahuman5196]

Will be working on proposal review today.

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[abdulrahuman5196]

Still pending review. Will close out before tomorrow.

[abdulrahuman5196]

Still pending review. Will close out before tomorrow.

Still working on review. Will check or re-assign accordingly

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify @abdulrahuman5196 this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to approving a proposal? If not, what's blocking us from getting this issue assigned? Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[JmillsExpensify]

@abdulrahuman5196 Any update on your review?

[abdulrahuman5196]

Hi, Sorry for the delay. Will take care of this in my morning or will re-assign tomorrow night.

[abdulrahuman5196]

Reviewing now

[abdulrahuman5196]

Hi @JmillsExpensify , the root cause is same as this issue - #33518. And would be fixed if we fix that issue.

we can put this issue on hold for the same.

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[JmillsExpensify]

Adding a hold per the above comment.

[abdulrahuman5196]

@abdulrahuman5196 I see. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's not possible to have overlapping transaction drafts if we clear out the draft on optimistic data, even when creating multiple transactions while offline using OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID.

Here is how it would run

1. Start a new money request

2. Confirm the money request

3. The draft of OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID is cleared (optimistically)

4. Start a new money request with the same OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID

5. The draft is new

If I understand correctly, OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID is only being used when creating a new money request.

@bernhardoj I am not actually getting your point.

The key for storing in Onyx is still the same and whereever we use the draft data the same key is used. This causes collision since the same key will be used for the new draft request as well.

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Line 1234 in 7b836cf

key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_DRAFT}${CONST.IOU.OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID}`,

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Line 156 in 8e2fb67

Onyx.set(`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_DRAFT}${newTransactionID}`, {

I hope this clears up the context. If you have some suggestions or proposal to fix the same. Could you kindly comment in the other linked issue?

[abdulrahuman5196]

because we already did it in optimistic data.

Ah!! @bernhardoj I got your point. It seems in scan flow of this particular issue, we already delete the transaction data optimistically itself, so there is no point in deleting it again in failure data or success data.

But the same is not being done currently in optimistic data of split bill. We don't delete it optimistically as I checked, so if its not deleted we would be using that optimistic data at some place was my thought process. Let me check again if we can use #33518 (comment) proposal itself to solve the case similar to how scan flow is handled.

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @abdulrahuman5196 Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[JmillsExpensify]

Still on hold for the linked issue.

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @abdulrahuman5196 Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[abdulrahuman5196]

The PR for the hold is in staging. @JmillsExpensify / @lanitochka17 Could you kindly re-test the issue in staging?

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @abdulrahuman5196 Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @abdulrahuman5196 Still overdue 6 days?! Let's take care of this!

[JmillsExpensify]

Still held on linked issue.

[abdulrahuman5196]

The linked issue changes are already in production.

@JmillsExpensify / @lanitochka17 Could you kindly re-test and close this issue, if its not reproducible?

[lanitochka17]

Issue is not reproducible on the latest build 1.4.48-0

Screen_Recording_20240307_234924_New.Expensify.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @abdulrahuman5196 Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[JmillsExpensify]

Looks like QA isn't able to reproduce this issue, so I'm going to close.